By pushing and encouraging a private sector in relation to healthcare, dislocation and displacement of Black and low-income individuals was evident. Charity Hospital had previously been accustomed to the idea of closure and rebranding in the twentieth century. It is no surprise that for many years individuals had attempted to distinguish Charity Hospital’s focus on accessible healthcare and prioritize capitalism. Dating back to the 1990’s, The Louisiana Health Care Authority (LHCA) possessed immense power over many charity hospitals– what initially was an attempt to “modernize and replace” (thesis page number 38) hospitals soon warped into an attempt to rebrand the hospital entirely. The LHCA declared that in order for Charity Hospital to reach its fullest potential in terms of modernization and quality of care, the removal of the word “charity” from the hospital name was necessary. It can be deduced that the LHCA’s attempt to remove the word “charity” from the hospital’s name was embedded in institutional racism in hopes of creating and transforming the space into a “white, middle-class space” (Lovell 260). To remove the word “charity” from the hospital’s name is to deny and refuse care to marginalized identities living in New Orleans that relied on the care that the hospital provided. In addition to this, many citizens felt close ties to Charity Hospital and felt a sense of community with other’s who were born in the hospital. Lovell mentions one group that named themselves “Charity Hospital Babies” (260) and how these individuals possessed momentum in terms of reclaiming identity and making meaning of their existence in a society that wouldn’t allow for it otherwise. Lovell states, “Charity Hospital Babies, rooted in popular history, embody a cycle of birth, life, and death at that public hospital, while simultaneously linking the individual body to the city as body” (265). With this in mind, it can be further understood how individual’s align themselves with the location in which they were born and how the removal of this physical space weighs heavily on an individual’s sense of self. More on this can be explored through Nicole Fleetwood’s article titled Failing Narratives, Initiating Technologies: Hurricane Katrina and the Production of a Weather Media Event, 

“…those with limited social networks and financial means, the most secure place to be in times of crisis is home. The safety associated with one’s domestic environment takes on heightened relevance in postindustrial urban areas with neglected infrastructural systems” (782).

Individuals were not able to leave the space they inhabited due to a variety of reasons– whether it be financial burden, lack of access to transportation, or personal ties to the space and the people they knew. In addition to this, structural inequities exist that prevent individuals from leaving the area. For example, some individuals felt as if there was immediate access to medical care. In the same article, Fleetwood mentions how the Superdome in Louisiana cared for individuals that were described as being “special needs populations” (782). It can be deduced that there were a multitude of reasonings for individuals to remain in New Orleans throughout Hurricane Katrina; some of which were personal justifications and some simply due to the inequities that exist in society. In addition to this, society perpetuated the idea that the safest place to remain throughout the storm was at home due to the fact that there were intrapersonal relationships that individuals had with other citizens and they were able to forge a sense of being while remaining at home.